Warning

Warning: This site contains images and graphic descriptions of extreme violence and/or its effects. It's not as bad as it could be, but is meant to be shocking. Readers should be 18+ or a mature 17 or so. There is also some foul language occasionally, and potential for general upsetting of comforting conventional wisdom. Please view with discretion.
Showing posts with label NATO 'friendly fire'. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO 'friendly fire'. Show all posts

Monday, June 19, 2017

"Mistakes" Behind 4 US Attacks on Syrian Forces

June 19, 2017
last edits June 22

The unprecedented U.S. shoot-down of a Syrian air force SU-22 on June 18 is at least the third direct attack on Syrian forces conducted by U.S. forces in the course of the war, all three of them in the last year, carried out under both the Obama and Trump administrations. A fourth apparent attack was blamed on Russian forces. While the deadliest attack happened during Obama's tenure, it was claimed as a mistake. The change seen under Trump is two attacks so far, both proudly claimed as justified, given Syria's unacceptable behavior.

Each time they were attacked, Syrian forces were blamed for causing it, through some criminal act needing punished, or through some kind of negligence. They seem to have a hard time learning their lesson, which usually isn't clear, and keep making a variety of mistakes, forcing the coalition's hand to attack them directly despite not wanting to. 

Further, these pretexts and the ensuing attacks keep seeming to support the goals - stated and unstated - of the U.S. in Syria and the region, helping Islamic State and other Jihadist groups expand their power at the expense of Syria's government. So the relation between stated mistakes and tacit motives should be carefully considered in each case.

All four incidents in chronological order:

1) Dec. 6, 2015, Saeqa Airbase, Deir Ezzour
(ACLOS) (Monitor)

Attack: First reports, including by SOHR and Syrian military, were clear that coalition forces flying out of Iraq launched this deliberate attack with nine missiles, killing several soldiers and wounding others at Saeqa airbase north of Deir Ezzour. It's said the U.S. jets split off while an unnamed nation's jets hit the base. The U.S. claims that was a Russian attack, flying through Iran and Iraq, that came exactly an hour after their own attack in the area, flying out of Iraq (or at the same time, depending on time zone issues - Iraq is an hour ahead of Syria). 
"Mistakes": Trusting those damn Russians?
Area/significance: The attack emboldened Islamic State (ISIS) forces around the base into an abortive attack - see #2 for a worse example. The Saeqa base and nearby town of Ayash were later overrun and remain ISIS-held in mid-2017. All positions around Deir Ezzour are tenuous; the city itself and all areas to the north, south, and east are firmly under ISIS control now. But there's a shrinking island of government  control just west of the city, a couple of well-manned army bases and the Deir Ezzour airbase, surrounded by the depths of the ISIS sea.
As such, there's a massive potential interest in having Syria lose all toeholds there, so thousands of soldiers can me massacred, sapping their will, and so the whole area can become another ISIS hub for outsiders to "liberate" and then not give back to Syria. Then it could be used, perhaps, as a capitol for the planned Sunnistan on the Iraq-Syria border area, as part of a new and more manageable Middle East. That would be Jihad and McWorld (as Benjamin Barber dubbed these forces some years ago) working together, as usual, to squeeze away the nation-state wherever it's seen as being in competition with McWorld's ambitions.

2) Sept. 17, 2016, Tal Thardah, Deir Ezzour

Attack: US and coalition attack on soldiers manning a regular spot, held steadily for months, on Thardah mountain (alt Jabal Turda, Tarda, etc.) The attack killed at least 62 soldiers and wounded well over 100. Survivors report coalition drone surveillance the day before, that cluster bombs were used in the attack, and the Americans gunned down soldiers from behind as they tried to flee, and that ISIS fighters were seen laughing about the help as they overran the abandoned hill.

"Mistakes": The Syrians had their fighters appear to be possible ISIS types (irregular uniforms, no flag noticed, and maybe some beards, besides some clean-shaven chins they didn't notice, perhaps?). And they let the US forget it was ever an important government-held area. This lax uniform code and lack of constant reminders left the coalition with no choice but to think these were ISIS guys in an ISIS area, a clearly worthy target to attack without even double-checking. The assault reportedly ran for about an hour before the Russians convinced the U.S. to cease fire.
Area/significance: this was an important mountain guarding Deir Ezzour airbase, their main airlink to the outside world and, as the cited Washington Institute map (at right) puts it, "The Islamic State's main goal" in the area. The attack destroyed all defenses there, and let ISIS actually overrun the mountain, massacre survivors, and gain the high ground over  the main object of their siege. They lost it with a Russian-backed counter-offensive that night, but later re-took it, and it's occupied by Islamic State to this day, keeping the airport vulnerable and more frequently attacked, and contributing to the slow erosion of government authority around Deir Ezzour.
The incident also angered Russia, and helped scuttle an agreed plan to partner with the U.S. to jointly fight ISIS AND the Al-Namechange Front. But it happened at the same time as the strike on the UN aid convoy (ACLOS) blamed by the U.S. on Syria and Russia, and used as the excuse to scuttle the deal Washington clearly never wanted, as they tried to ignore this coincidental "mistake." But after this, the coalition perhaps decided two mistakes was enough, even with one blamed on Russia. But they've been fairly open about the goal of chasing ISIS from their crumbling capitol of Raqqah and herding them towards Deir Ezzour (see entry #4 below).

3) April 7, 2017, Shayrat Airbase attack
(ACLOS)

Attack: 59 long-range missiles fired, moderately damaging Shayrat airbase, destroying some jets, reportedly killing at least six soldiers and nine civilians (when about 1/3 of the missiles missed the target), among them four children, and injuring many others. The Shayrat airbase is in Homs province, central Syria, and for once not in Deir Ezzour or very near to any Islamic State threat. That is for once, a U.S. attack did not directly favor ISIS on the government's most delicate battlefront.

"Mistakes": Syrian forces just had to drop a sarin bomb on Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib, on April 4, from 2 km south of town, which blew exactly upwind to kill 100+ and affect hundreds. (ACLOS) (Monitor) This included "beautiful babies" shown off by "opposition activists," and Ivanka Trump was made to cry. See:
US supposed radar track of attack jets from Shayrat base to prove the attack - that was said to be from a gravity bomb dropped from one of the two jets - north end of track compared to sarin release point (that black dot does represent the whole town, and the path is well south, at its closest):
Per the opposition story: sarin deaths (pinks spots in the purple area), sarin release point (blue circle inside the red circle), prevailing wind on video (estimate range in green - full explanation here), and thus note: their story does the exact opposite of line up.
See, that's what Damascus should not have done. If they want less U.S. bombing, they need to stop doing illegal, silly and impossible things like this.
 

Area/significance: The alleged sarin attack was near in time and space to a mass abduction of at least 120 civilians from briefly-overrun government-held areas to the south just days earlier. Still no victim-to-hostage matches have been publicized, but it could be these poor citizens, or some less obvious hostages, that provided the flesh for this bogus incident with just about 100 killed (counts vary). This can easily be  seen as Ghouta 2.0, designed to test a President Trump's reaction to the lackluster one by Obama the first time around. The first openly-acknowledged intentional attack on Syrian forces followed, with Trump threatening more of the same if opposition activists could convince him of another such attack.

4) Jun. 18, 2017, SU-22 downed near Tabqa:
(ACLOS)

Attack: A U.S. F/A-18 fighter jet shot down Syrian SU-22 attack plane dropping bombs "near SDF fighters" south of Tabqa (also near the crumbling ISIS capitol of Raqqah). Pro-government sources claim the jet was conducting a raid on Islamic State (ISIS) positions, while the anti-government SOHR heard the jet was hit over "al-Resafa" and not targeting SDF forces further north, but ISIS ones (and the pilot's fate remains unclear). However a U.S. Navy statement claims Syrian forces first attacked U.S.-backed Kurdish SDF forces, chasing them from the town of Ja'Din ("which sits approximately two kilometers north of an established East-West SDF-Syrian Regime de-confliction area" and per Peto Lucem's latest, just on the ISIS side of the line (see right). Then at 6:43 p.m., a Syrian SU-22 "dropped bombs near SDF fighters south of Tabqah" and "was immediately shot down by a U.S. F/A-18E Super Hornet" in accordance with rules to protect coalition partners. The immediate part sounds like there was no warning even, because they soooo should have already known better than to ... There's no claim the bombs were dropped on or aimed at the SDF fighters, as opposed to ISIS. The reality of who first liberated Ja'Din from ISIS and what happened after remains unclear to me at the moment.There are reports of the SAA liberating it, apparently from ISIS, but none of the SDF announcing a conquest. So maybe Syria took it from ISIS, the Kurds broke in and tried to take it, but the SAA chased them out under fire, and hence maybe SDF made a revenge call of bombs falling too "close" to them.

"Mistakes": dropping bombs near SDF, on SDF, competing too well against or fighting with SDF, threatening to liberate the al-Resafa crossroads from ISIS, unclear.

Area/significance: the attack came at the head of incredible Syrian gains in the last few days, a long push east just south of a sluggish-seeming SDF frontline. SyriaLiveMap shows more recent expansion by both forces to the east along their dividing line, both seeming to race towards the important crossroad and airport at Resafa (bottom middle on the map below). Conflict would be possible along the line, where Ja'Din is - their map showed, when I checked, Ja'din in the SDF-held area, and north of the same line extended (but it wiggles...)
later frontlines in light blue - green line and purple area are to help set where Ja'din is
But the jet was reportedly hit south of the deconfliction line, to be over Resafa as the SOHR heard, and thus more than likely hitting ISIS, not SDF targets. And provoked or not, the jet-downing might serve - coincidentally? - to shake Syrian resolve and halt this trend of progress in reclaiming their own territory, blocking the exits for ISIS fighters who might flee Raqqah to Deir Ezzour to help submerge the last Islands of sanity there, and furthering the Syrian goal of breaking the years-old siege of that important city. (apparently it did not stall Syria - see Moon of Alabama analysis) - they moved on to liberate Al-Resafa, an important point, as Russia has banned all coalition flights from west of the Euphrates, on penalty of tracking and possible shoot-down, with the U.S agreeing to scale back over there, and Australia at least halting operations for the time being (RT).

<add 6-22>Syria Live Map now shows Ja'Din and some areas to the north under Syrian army control, and the crossroads at "Ar Rusafah" here, and even a bit to the east, also in government hands.<end 6-22>

With that goal achieved, here is their situation vis-a-vis Deir Ezzour (from Moon of Alabama). We can see why Resafa was so important. And Trump just had to start downing Syrian jets as soon as they were bombing it.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Coalition Air Attack on the Saeqa Army Base

December 12, 2015
(incomplete) 
last edits Dec. 20

Aircraft of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition almost certainly did deliberately attack the Saeqa military camp near Deir Ezzour the  night of December 6, killing four Syrian army soldiers and wounding 13 others. 

This is probably why the coalition knew they could/had to deny it immediately, unlike a subsequent claim of civilians killed in another strike in Hasakeh. That one, maybe - they were bombing in the area. But Saeqa, no way. Their operations in that area and that time only hit ISIS targets and were 55 kilometers (35 miles) away from the base, to its southeast. It's a day's walk at least, and takes way longer if you're dragging a fighter jet. How on EARTH could they be here and also get over there in the same night?

No, that's not all - they have other evidence: a radar track of a Russian "backfire bomber" that passed by the same place and time and hit that base, presumably on accident. Well, it's been repeated by everyone, with suspended disbelief, but they can only cite one or two anonymous officials so far speaking of this from knowledge. The claim may solidify with confirmation by other, named people. Or it might still melt away into a complicated accident story. But so far, the US is clear it was not them or anyone allied.

I still haven't read everything available or studied any videos, and there will be plenty of new information coming anyway - but I got a sort of incoherent start (rough week) at the talk page for the ACLOS page Airstrike on Saeqa military camp near Deir ez-Zor Here, I'll share a quick copy of main points and the mapping. Sources etc. soon. We can see why this non-coalition explanation is not going to stick.

The Significance of this Area
Saeqa base is (apparently) the northern base shown here in orange, just outside Ayash. The pink-shaded area here is government-held, with the gray ISIS/Daesh-held. Blue = oil fields. Ignore the goof up at the bottom.

Note just this one oil field (el-Mashash, see below) is still government-held. For many miles on all sides and miles on the other side of the nearby Iraq border, is Daesh gray.






See overall situation map, small form - the pink spot right of center. This is the last little island of  "regime control" - outer Deir Ezzor, Ayash, and a small swathe of land including two army bases and the one government-held oil field in the whole region.  the last slight roadblock speedbump between Mosul and Raqah. This is Syria holding on by its fingers to its last and shrinking island in a sea of Deashbags. Someone with jets stomped on those fingers.
Below is the area in detail.
Daesh forces just 2 km away in fact took advantage of the attack to attack the base themselves, but this was "repelled," for the moment.They still plan to overrun it and everything else here. More attacks like the one on December 6 could really help them out.

As Damascus worded it in their official letter of complaint, "This hampers efforts to combat terrorism and proves once again that this coalition lacks seriousness and credibility to effectively fight terrorism."

Who has a potential, logical motive to remove more territory from Syria's government control and balkanize the place, and has openly lobbied for just that? The US-led coalition side is the one with a strong possible motive to hit this base, obviously. That's why Russia's doing it must've been a mistake. They have zero motive. 
 
Mapping Syria's Story
From the soldiers at the base up to Damascus and the Kremlin, so far ... it seems like this is what they're saying happened (subject to revision):

4 US-led coalition jets flew north from the Bukamal area at the Iraq border (after flying from or through Iraq?). Two of them behaved like the US says its acknowledged jets acted  - they hit targets about 55 km southeast of Ayash, which is all ISIS turf. (no US details on flight directions yet to compare)

The other two - nationality to be announced, but coalition member state(s) - peeled off a bit to the west and blasted the Saeqa base. 

Sources say the attackers then flew north and hit target (of no mentioned interest) in Daesh-held Shadadi. 

Here's how that maps out compared to US claims. This is how they deny the area. 55 km southeast, it seems, is just a bit further back on the attack flight path. 

They MAY still officially deny this by saying it was the Russians who snuck in between them all and launched this goof-up. But they may well admit this too merits investigation. Then they would investigate it for a long time.

An Hour Earlier?
They also deny it by time, and that also fails. An anonymous official told US News how a dozen Russian bombers flew in from Russia, on an unusual route via Iran and Iraq, and secretly bombed Bukamal and Deir Ezzour. This was all seen on radar. "One senior official said the Russian aircraft were in the air around 9 p.m. Sunday near the city of Deir el-Zour, whereas the coalition aircraft were flying an hour earlier about 55 kilometers away."

The time zone this is rendered in isn't certain; local time (GMT +2) is usually given, but they may be using Iraq time (GMT +3), meaning 8 pm in Syria. It's either this or there's disagreement when the attack happened. The officials say "one of the TU-22s made a pass over the area of the army camp within one minute of the explosion that killed the Syrian troops" at around 9. But the Syrians always said the attacks was shortly before 8 pm, give or take ("according to the Syrian General Staff ... between 19:40 and 19:55 local time (+2 hours GMT)." - RT).

So did it happen about the same time coalition jets were said to be there, making that acknowledged strike on about the same path witnesses describe? If so, the coalition confirms their presence in the location and time to be the attackers, and their alleged Russians got there too late to fit the bill. Otherwise, he's using the wrong time zone and confusing things, while claiming to have done its local strikes at around 7pm local. We shall see if anyone bothers sorting that out.

Coordinated with ISIS?
Syrian Perspective passes on a unique story where ISIS was already attacking the Saeqa base and called in support strikes to Turkey, who called them into the coalition. There's enough logic to that it's possible, bit I doubt it. More likely, they just took advantage. I'm curious though if they were extra-prepared at the moment.

No News, My Guess
Added December 20: It's now been almost 2 weeks since the event, and over 10 days since the last word from either side. That was by Russia. They said on the 9th (MoD statement, via Facebook) "As soon as the Syrian officials publish the results of the incident investigation and munition inspection, the Russian Defence Ministry is to get information about the aircraft, which performed the airstrike on the Syrian troops."

They and everyone knew it seemed to be a coalition attack, maybe just by its flight path from and maybe back into Iraq. However, the coalition blaming Russia says the Russian attackers flew in through Iraq, so that's their explanation for that.

And only one side has specified a model of aircraft; the coalition says the Russians used a TU-22, long-range "backfire bomber" (jet-style bomber), and had about a dozen of them in the group.

Both sides claim good evidence against the other, but neither has come out with any more of it. My guess is this: the Syrians and Russians finished the munition inspection are are now stumped over how to break the news that it was apparently a Russian-made jet that hit the base. Now they're left with proposing a "conspiracy theory" that the coalition somehow (Kiev?) acquired a TU-22 or a few of them (probably not a dozen), and used that to implicate Russia.

And that can't be done on accident, but as part of a deliberate plan to stomp on Syria's fingers in this delicate location - and blame Russia for it (with Iranian and Iraqi airspace complicity at least built into the story).

But the alternative the coalition offers makes virtually no real-world sense. So, if my hunch is true, Moscow and Damascus should come on out with it. And maybe they will, but they want a well-assembled case first. Will it be more days? Weeks? Months? Decades/forever?

Base Location
A stitched panoramic view from attack site video shows the place has trees. the most common indicated area doesn't seem to have any. Syrian Perspective's map here points to "Camel Corps" base almost in Ayash, and there are trees. Another map I found on Twitter points to army storage next to that, also maybe consistent. (anyone trying, this is most likely a morning shot, so the gate is south of the camera, and remember panoramic views "bend" the scene, so don't take visible angles too literally) (also, it's quite possible two or more areas were hit.)

We'll probably have an exact geolocation someday. But all sources agree it was somewhere in that pink, well-known pocket of government control, so exactly where doesn't matter so much except for pinning down finer points of the story (we may or may not get that far).


Saturday, June 18, 2011

The Attack on the Peace Drive

June 3, 2011
Last Update June 18

This is post is dedicated to a reported event I've never heard of outside of a Libyan government press conference by Moussa Ibrahim. That alone would cause most people to give up considering it any further. But I'm not most people.

The video in question is on Youtube, entitled Peace drive kidnapping of two women by armed group attacking convoy 30 3 2011. And strangely, after calling it undated, I just now noticed, at the end of the long title, a date! March 30. Oops. The main subject Mr. Ibrahim tried to keep it to was a reported kidnapping (as well as at least one killing) that resulted from a "peace drive" of loyalist civilians, hoping to open talks with the rebels in Benghazi. The accompanying text:
Dr Moussa Ibrahim on what happened to the peace caravan 100km east of Sirte, where two Libyan women were kidnapped by armed rebels. This peace drive was called for and organised by the Libyan tribes, not by the government.
The Western press was distrustful, and clearly trying hard, right then and there, to spin the news back against the government. After the fact, I have yet to see if anyone wrote anything about it. I was following the news close enough then I'd be surprised if I totally missed it. But then, I missed that date ...

All of the video above is also included in this video I just made based on it, with info, questions, and opinions inserted. (page link)


Further Information
I could find little, using different search word variations. (but then, I didn't even know the date to help narrow things down). I could before find only one reference, dated March 31, to a since-deleted Youtube video of "The Libyan rebels opening fire on a peace caravan of women, children, and the elderly." Url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtmL60oHXtU. So I did have the date, just couldn't see the video.

At my video posting, I asked for more information, and got some quickly, from Youtube member "Anti-Nazi Hippy"
attack:
youtube.com/watch?v=FtmL60oHXtU
aftermath:
youtube.com/watch?v=RqqR09bXG6A

The attack link is the same dead end I found. But the aftermath video, via user "Rayyisse," works and is interesting (I saved a copy).

It's dated April 7 (stamped later, not necessarily the date it was filmed), and shows Libyan soldiers posing at the scene of a mysterious incident or incidents. Two tour busses are left abandoned, tires flat, windshields shattered, marked with spray-painted Arabic graffiti. Only at the very end is a third bus shown, apparently gutted by fire to boot.

In the middle span is shown quite a number of destroyed or abandoned tanks at the same scene, some just yards away from the busses, others scattered across the desert nearby. It looks like around a dozen. Some are still on fire, or on fire again. Others are charred, seemingly flattened a bit, some with turrets blown off and laying nearby. I thought it looked like a NATO air strike where, one presumes, the tanks came to rescue the besieged caravan only to be bombed for coming too near to rebel positions.

Except ... a couple at least are painted with the rebel/monarchist flag, which the soldiers kick and spit at. Another with a flag on its turret is shown pouring flames. Are these rebel tanks that had come to meet the peace caravan? Managed to kill a few and take some captives before being partly destroyed by the nearby army?

The Attack Video -
Searching for the text, I found this:
Libyans in the west decided to settle the matter with peaceful negotiations with armed rebels from the east. They formed a convoy consisting of hundreds of people, mostly women, children and elderly people. They went to the east of Libya, t...
And at that page, an existing posting of what I presume to be the attack video:


And at the same link is included a version with English subtitles, and commentary, added:


I cannot verify if it's the same, but I'd guess so, and made sure to save a copy of each. Off the bat, it's not completely convincing. Perhaps the subtitles version threw me off.
"We want peace," "These rebels are dangerous! Damn them!" "Ooh, here comes the soldiers! These are the Gaddafi soldiers coming to save us!" etc. Possibly genuine, possibly scripted.

It shows the view from one woman's vantage point, as she runs, shrieking, towards a larger group of people milling around a line of at leas six tour busses. The hills here are covered with tiny flowers, not the sandy desert the tanks were filmed in (although it's conceivable the two spots are very close). There is gunfire and light explosions heard, but it sounds like a nearby battle.  The other people visible - barely, as the camera flies around - do not seem to be running or taking cover like the camerwoman is. Only she seems so agitated, fearing for her life, and prominently clutching a white cloth of surrender in her right hand as she runs towards the others, who seem much safer a hundred yards away. Along the way, she helps an old man said in the subtitles to be injured. But judging how he easily stands right up when she offers her hand, it seems more like he was just tired. The one with translation has the man off-screen talking to her halfway through saying the government was telling them they were in danger and had to flee. She seemed to already know that, but the others don't really. It's strange.

I have previously done some critiques of what I suspect are fake propaganda videos by Libyan rebels. I may finally have a contender here from the government side. I intend to see about learning more, however, to see if my skepticism is just in overdrive here. I'll report back what I learn and decide, sometime later now. Just this took too long.
---
Update June 18: After explaining how I wasn't going to do any new research, I just did some but will only explain it briefly: The above aftermath video was probably, instead, this, dated (as the video is) April 7, Ajdabiya:
Rebel fighters claimed NATO airstrikes blasted their forces Thursday in another apparent mistake ... […]
A rebel commander, Ayman Abdul-Karim, said he saw airstrikes hit tanks and a rebel convoy, which included a passenger bus carrying fighters toward Brega. He and other rebels described dozens killed or wounded, but a precise casualty toll was not immediately known.
This video shows three busses, not one, but otherwise it's a better match with what's shown.

And at about the same time, a better match for the peace drive bus - Sky News, video, 100 miles east of Sirte, March 29:
“This is the road to Sirte. We’re about 100 miles from Gaddafi’s home town and the rebels’ advance has been badly blocked by some heavy fighting about five miles down the road. We’ve seen at least three bodies come back, but for the rest, the rebels are simply parked off and waiting for the coalition to do their job for them with air strikes.” 
“Fear and bad intelligence paralyze the rebels. The movemement of a coach was enough to cause panic. I saw this bus come across the front line. In it were 30 or 40 young men, fighting age males."
How he knew the passenger makeup is unclear, but a dark blue tour bus is shown driving towards the camera. It has an escort of a few pickup trucks, one with a very large gun pointing straight up. Later, standing by the abandoned coach, he said:
"Now, the rebels feared that they might be infiltrators sent by Gaddafi to sow mayhem and chaos behind their lines. The wheels were shot out, and the bus itself has been shot up. But there’s no evidence of blood inside it. What we don’t know is what happened to the young men."
And for what it's worth, I blew portions of a couple of nights trying to stabilize that attack video, which is clearly a different scene from the one Sky showed. This is about the best I could do, and better than I meant to. The gunfire sounds realistic, and we have confirmation a dark blue coach, like the five seen here, was peppered with gunshots.

There is at least one other person besides the camera woman waving a white flag, and a few sort of jogging towards the top of the hill, plus the man telling them to flee (back to the busses, or away from them?). All this suggests if the scene is partially staged, there are a few people at least in on it.

Did they stop and get out upon being attacked, or was it a surprise as many were scattered out on some pit stop? The trucks are there pretty much the whole time the busses are visible. SOrry the volume's a little high - turn your stuff down before starting it. I was trying to just boost the battle and background sounds.